Edwards Campaign Strategy Question: Media Exposure

[TwilightGardener]

Watching TV today, I noticed John Edwards and Duncan Hunter were both making the cable afternoon circuit, and it got me wondering: Why do Hillary, McCain, Rudy and Obama stay away from this kind of exposure? You don't see them on any channel, doing any interviews, unless it's a Big Planned Special Event. Instead, you get stories and sound bites, and any interviews are with their consultants and pundits--why?

Is media exposure risky or harmful to frontrunners? I understand Edwards is trailing in polls, but I thought of him as a first-tier candidate, and now I'm wondering--does it cheapen John Edwards' campaign to frequently go on Hardball and Situation Room? In other words, to pull a Biden? Is this part of what separates the first tier from the second tier--if you act like a diva, you get treated like a diva? Thoughts?

[zeemike]

1. You got it about right

But what separates the tier of candidates is the media itself.
They confer on who they want the front runner status and give them all the coverage they need to maintain it.
We only think we chose a candidate because they tell us who we want.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Tweety said Obama's guy, Axelrod, said he would not be doing those programs

for about 2 months as he traveled the country introducing himself to people personally. Then he will be on them.
That is the game plan

[TwilightGardener]

3. Well, that's good to hear--I think it takes a confident person

to face the unexpected in ordinary TV journalist interviews, and not just give canned campaign appearances in friendly pre-programmed venues (Rudy), but there is an element of risk there, of misspeaking or of not being prepared, as well. Edwards always handles it well, I just wonder if it helps his image, or does it give people the perception that he's an also-ran?

[rhombus]

4. It has to do with unnecessary overexposure for good reason

Obama does local tv and newspaper interviews when he campaigns. But the Tweetys, Blitzers and co. are to be avoided because they tend to engage in petty, unsubstantive stuff like the Obama-Clinton supposed "fight", Obama-Sharpton "fight", Hillary-Bill "personal family issues", etc. You get the picture. And Obama and Hillary being in the senate tend to get free media exposure through C-SPAN.


Local interviews in Iowa and New Hampshire tend to focus more on substance and bread and butter issues.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Interesting angle, never thought of that. I know that Blitzer & Co always

grope for the "controversial headline-maker" responses in interviews to self-perpetuate more of their news content--Wolfie did that with Max Cleland yesterday, and Max rose to the bait. I can see why it might be wise to avoid this.

[NDP]

8. Oh please, Edwards has been doing local television for the past 4 years, when he was

working on those ballot initiatives for the minimum wage, standing in picket lines, and helping workers unionize or get better wages. That theory of yours has zero to do with it. Besides, Dodd and Biden are "also" in the Senate, so that has nothing to do with it either.

The media cover who they choose to cover, period. You all can postulate all that you want, and try to come up with some strategic solution, but this is a simple issue. If Chris Matthews wants to put up a Clinton v. Obama header on his show as he has done probably 20+ times this year, even if it's the day where John Edwards is unveiling his Universal Health Care Plan, which Matthews proceeds not to mention at all, then Chris Matthews puts up the header, because he "wants to."

[Czolgosz]

6. Edwards isn't really "trailing in the polls" - he's leading Iowa and tied with Hillary (within the

margin of error behind Obama) in New Hampshire.

Iowa:

Edwards 24%
Clinton 18%
Obama 18%
Vilsack 14%
Biden 5%
Richardson 3%
Clark 2%
Dodd 1%
Kucinich 1%
Undecided 14%

http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_022207.htm

New Hampshire:

Obama 23%
Clinton 19%
Edwards 19%
Kerry 5%
Clark 3%
Biden 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Vilsack 1%
Not sure 22%

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1237

You see more of Edwards on cable because he isn't getting as much free media as Hillary and Obama.

[NDP]

7. Until you get publicly-financed campaigns, where all candidates get television time, the media

will continue to ignore who they choose to ignore.

Show me where Obama and Hillary have put forth any proposals that are more detailed than those of Edwards and Kucinich. Obama and Hillary say nothing and get covered. The others say nothing, and don't get covered. Obama and Hillary say nothing and get covered. The others say something, and don't get covered.

What do you think the problem really is? It's not with the other candidates.

[Dr Fate]

9. Perhaps Eddie learned from the "Where's Edwards?" '04 smear.

His local media strategy in '04 sounded great on paper- but he should have supplemented that with nightly via sattalite cable TV interviews...

Eddie knows that people need to see good Democrats on TV defending Democratic positions-and it shows he on think on his feet. I hope to see more of him on these shows...